This is a “what if” interview from the World Economic Forum’s Risk Response Network. To view the rest of the series, click here.

While it may sound like science fiction, a number of the world’s major militaries are already preparing for combat in space. The World Economic Forum, in collaboration with TIME, spoke with Theresa Hitchens, director of the U.N. Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR). She warns that strikes against satellites could push earth wars to a new level. (The views expressed here are her own, not those of the United Nations.)

Is there really a threat for conflict in space?

We may not be about to see a real life Death Star hovering into view, but we will see earth wars elevated into space. It is almost inevitable that if a major conflict arises between developed powers, satellites will become targets. This was not the case ten years ago, but since then satellites have increasingly been integrated into a nation’s ability to project power and pursue a war. They are used for military communications, for mapping and to guide bombs. A modern army could not operate in a satellite-free environment. This is worrying when you consider that, if a satellite is destroyed or damaged, it is not only the military functions that are taken out: most of them carry out all kinds of essential civilian services, too.

What warning signs have you seen already?

Three nations have tested anti-satellite weapons in the last three decades: the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s, then China in 2007. The latter shocked a lot of people. China sent a kinetic weapon – a solid warhead – slamming into one of its own weather satellites, causing an explosion which created thousands of pieces of debris in one of the most crowded orbits around earth. The worst part was not the demonstration of capability, as pretty much everyone knew China could do something like this, it was the question of why they chose to demonstrate it in the manner in which they did. What’s more, any country that has a medium-range ballistic weapon and a reasonable commercial satellite programme can develop an anti-satellite weapon, and there is no real international agreement on what norms of behaviour are acceptable. I am pretty sure that France, India and Israel all have the capacity.

North Korea hasn’t shown much control over its ballistic missiles. Frankly, they couldn’t hit the back side of a barn.

If war were to escalate in space, how would the situation unfold?

Say you have a crisis between two nuclear-armed, space-faring countries, Nation A and Nation B, which have a long-standing border dispute. Nation A, with its satellite capability, sees that Nation B is mobilizing troops and opening up military depots in a region where things are very tense already, on the tipping point. Nation A thinks: “That’s it, they’re going to attack”. So it might decide to pre-emptively strike the communications satellite used by Nation B to slow down its ability to move toward the border and give itself time to fortify. Say this happens and Nation B has no use of satellites for 12 hours, the time it takes it to get another satellite into position. What does Nation B do? It’s blind, it’s deaf, it’s thinking all this time that it’s about to be overwhelmed by an invasion or even nuked. This is possibly a real crisis escalation situation; something similar has been played out in U.S. Air Force war games, a scenario-planning exercise practiced by the U.S. military. The first game involving anti-satellite weapons stopped in five minutes because it went nuclear – bam. Nation B nuked Nation A. This is not a far-out, “The sky’s falling in!” concern, it is something that has been played out over and over again in the gaming of these things, and I have real fears about it.

Could other channels of communication not defuse the situation?

I have fewer fears about major nation states who have established means of communicating with one another. The United States and Russia have ways of de-escalating crises which they built up during the Cold War. So when, in 1995, Yeltsin was handed the nuclear command suitcase after a Norwegian-American research rocket was mistaken for a missile strike from the West, he called Clinton on the hotline and resolved the situation. The United States and China don’t have a hot line, although their communication is improving over time. India and Pakistan don’t have a hotline. Iran doesn’t have a hotline with anyone.

If a strike on a satellite did take place, who would be impacted and how?

That depends on who is involved. Some countries have dedicated military satellites, so the impact would be quite limited, but more often, satellites have combined military, government and commercial uses. For example, in the first Gulf War, 80% of military communications went through commercial satellites. If a nation state were desperate enough to blow up a commercial satellite, the impact on civilian populations shouldn’t be underestimated. While I don’t see a situation where we’ll go back to the 1950s for six months, you could have an entire country without effective communication systems, with very little access to the internet and phones, for a certain period of time. It would disrupt telemedicine and financial systems, people wouldn’t be able to get money out of ATMs, “just in time” delivery on anything from food to manufacturing parts would falter, it would impact power grids, the water supply and search and rescue operations. There would be widespread collateral damage, and not just on the populations of our hypothetical Nation A and Nation B, since satellites serve regions rather than individual countries.

What can be done to reduce the risk of this kind of conflict?

There need to be some very serious discussions about what kind of escalation ladders and red lines can be established in any kind of conflict involving satellites. There has to be some more honest discussion on doctrines and policy, and more transparency. We need to know how and when and at what point it become unacceptable to target satellites. The United States holds that it has the right to attack other people’s satellites, including with kinetic weapons, even though the United States has the most invested in satellites. It is a short-sighted and potentially self-harming doctrine. While China is less than transparent regarding its military space doctrine, from what we can read and see regarding investments, they seem to have a similar policy. Overall, we need international discussion and agreement on how the rules of war apply to space.

Do your research please? USA destroyed one of his satellite by a missile before China demonstrated to the US ,Chinese can do the same so don't threaten me.Thru out the history,US always use his advance military technology threatening the other country with less hi-tech.

Absolutely. It sucks being a low tech 5h1thol3, doesn't it. China just got busted trying to steal 2 tons of Boron Carbon Fiber to build a stealth fighter with. If they had spent their money on research instead of spies.......

Already evasion maneuvers and debris flybys are the norm rather than the exception for the crew of the ISS. Earlier this year, the space station had to dodge a piece of debris left by the Chinese ASAT test. Scientists track many thousand pieces of debris currently cluttering up NEO that could cause damage to satellites and systems.

Even if the ISS isn't affected, destroying a satellite with a view of the hot spot puts at risk other, non-belligerent satellites belonging to parties trying to assess the situation, or at the very least would require careful and expensive maneuvering to gather their data.

We could lose all access to space, stuck on this planet in a dervish prison of our own design.

And a nation could easily find themselves back in the 1950s if the situation you described happened between nuclear powers. Rather than directly destroying cities and bases, a high level detonation could instead target unshielded electronics and networks over vast areas with fewer weapons required, leaving the targeted region less dangerous, perhaps even habitable. The chaos such an event would cause should be more than enough time to get your armies ready.

The fact of modern technology has enabled true hyperwars to occur; and they are not limited to just ASAT actions between hostile forces.

Envision what would happen if a NGO, a terror band for example with some expert hackers who cracked into the controlling systems of commercial/military satellite systems; how much damage or disruption could they do if a few key system links are disrupted or brought down?

Combine this with heightened tensions between two countries - for example the current mess building between China and Japan; and the above scenario of an quick escalation to a nuclear exchange (in the article) becomes very plausible.

The side with the best overall system redundancy, survivability and adaptability to the unknown will probably emerge victorious.

Define "Armada". Technically it is the Spanish word for 'fleet'. So that would translate into space fleet. That would mean that Comcast or ATamp;T would qualify. IIRC both have fleets of satellites in orbit (space).

If you are suggesting actual 3 masted, wooden Men 'O War in space, I suggest you put the pipe down and get something to eat.

A space armada is not necessary - a few ASAT's direction at key satellites, say the GPS navigation system, telecommunications, and military intel/comm systems would be needed - figure about 30 to substantially degrade the US satellite system substantially.

Combine this with cyberwar attacks to disrupt, degrade or destroy key systems in the military and civilian command structures, and the next war may be over before the other side even knows its begun.

A few years ago the nation of Georgia suffered limited cyberwar attacks; giving a simple view of what a more concentrated, dedicated and precise attack could result in - a nation blind, deaf, dumb and all but helpless.

Any nation with limited ballistic missile systems can always try for the poor mans version of ASAT - two or more low-yield nukes in low orbit that generate a mass EMP effect.